"The Avenger Has Been Under-marketed, Plus It Isn't All That Great."
I'm not quite sure how Brandweek decided the winners and losers in their ROI (Return on Investment) analysis of automotive advertising. The Malibu campaign is considered a winner even though Chevy's spent a reported $150m (upped here to $300m) to sell 7,210 cars through November. I know: it's WAY too early to make that calculation. And how is the Tundra a winner when they forked-out $1,404 per Tundra sold– unless Brandweek's looking at total profit margin, which they're not. Sigh. I think scribe Steve Miller just took the money and ran, picking his favorite car ads and justifying them, then selecting a few sales dogs and doing the math. Speaking of which, Ford spent $108 per Taurus sold, which wasn't very many (26,720 through November). Miller's accompanying text hits the nail's head: "The relaunched Taurus tried to rally around safety, which is a one-trick game. Volvo wins with that gambit, not Taurus." And once again, Chrysler tops the bottom of a worst list. Chrysler spent $84 per Avenger (pithy quote above from George Peterson, president of Auto Pacific) and $110 per Sebring. Apparently "consumers have misgivings about Sebring’s overall quality." I wonder why…
Comments
Join the conversation
Well...duh
Corporate America forgot how to ask the right questions a while back. Who advertises in Brandweek? Do the advertisers want their clients really measuring success accurately, or would they prefer a softer grading scheme?
"isn't all that great" is an extremely charitable summation of the Avenger.
Avenger is an oxymoron for sure. Buying a Cry-sler is like marrying a death row inmate.